Re: container types

> A specific question for you. For example 2 in the spec, the  
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1 resource seems to be both a information 
and non-information resource. Would you agree ? 

Roger, my (intentionally cagey) answer is that ...based on the contents of 
the example... that the server is asserting that /nw1 is a document on the 
web (which WebArch calls an information resource [1]), since it is 
responding with 200 OK and with that representation to requests to that 
URI.  By definition, that much is true (or the server is responding 
erroneously, but I thought we didn't worry about error cases and access 
control issues [slap!]).

The o:NetWorth type, I assume purely by inference from context, says that 
it is "something about" net worth.  For those prone to rely on exegesis 
[waves to Erik], we'd have to look at its definition (which is not 
provided, as this is an example) to assess whether or not the use of that 
type is appropriate to describe a document, to describe a concept, both, 
or neither.


I'm not myself fond of trying to figure out (except when I'm the URI 
allocator) whether some URI is "legally" or "appropriately" identifying 
either resource group.  It's the URI allocators' job to make any required 
distinctions, and to make their servers behave appropriately.  [1] as I 
read it divides resources into 3 (sic) groups: the "clearly information" 
group, the "clearly non-information" group, and the "I can see it either 
way" group.  As a Gemini, for me most things fall into the last one so I 
take the server's word for it.  There are plenty of cases where my private 
opinion disagrees with the assertions of others, but relatively few IMO 
worth the energy to dispute given that I like to have *some* control over 
how my own time is spent rather than just continuously fighting things I 
disagree with reflexively.

I rather like foaf:Person's approach actually [2] when it explicitly 
discourages nitpicking (their words, not mine, so flames about that to 
/dev/null) about cases like an imaginary person; those prone to spirited 
discussion might argue that all of an imaginary person's "essential" 
characteristics might be conveyed in a message - and I could see it that 
way, or not.  "Net worth"'s essential characteristics seem at first glance 
to satisfy the criteria in [1] for information resources; if I'm missing 
some, by all means fill me in - this is off the cuff.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
[2] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario